Retos a los que el modelo debe enfrentarse y estrategias de desarrollo

First, the idea of a paradigm has to be understood to show its impact on the research process that is about to be conducted.

Phenomenology as a paradigm aims to “…understand the ‘constructs’ people use in everyday life to make sense of their world” (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003, p. 11). While a positivist approach is widely used in engineering and the pure sciences due to the fact that those disciplines are areas that are relatively predictable, the phenomenological approach is mostly used in sociology. The strongest argument for the phenomenological approach is the fact that it is essentially relying on individuals, which comes along with a high degree of complexity and unpredictability as individuals do not always think and act rationally. Bryman and Bell explain that social scientists need to gain access to the

‘common sense thinking’ of people to understand their point of view and interpret their actions (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

The investigation into human behaviour, thinking and perception creates a complexity that makes it difficult to predict the outcomes. In phenomenology, the researcher seeks to get close to the sample to investigate it in depth. Investigation into a stakeholder network and analysing the linkages requires the involvement of the researcher into the network. Stakeholder networks cannot be analysed in a positivist way (Post et al, 2002).

Therefore, a phenomenological approach is needed to answer the research questions.

Nevertheless, phenomenology is often accused of showing a lack of rigour and discipline in comparison to positivism. It has also been critiqued as allowing the researcher too much freedom of action due to the potentially high level of subjective assessment that can lead to dilution. This is mainly due to the fact that a researcher’s knowledge and experience naturally impacts the way data is interpreted. Those points of critique can be faced with full transparency of the research process.

Recent research in the field of HRM and stakeholder theory was successfully undertaken by using a phenomenological approach. It allowed the researchers to investigate deeply into stakeholder networks and related human resource aspects and is well respected in that scientific community (Sachs et al., 2008b; Schmitt, 2010; Bansal

& Corley, 2011).

64

3.3 Research methodology

Research design

In the previous chapter it was explained and argued why a phenomenological approach is the most valuable for this study. The research methodology needs to fit the paradigm and offer the most promising potential to gain the data for answering the research question.

Qualitative research in the field of stakeholder theory in connection with human resource management has already been conducted multiple times by known researchers.

This is an important criterion to evaluate the quality and usefulness for the design of a study (Tonette, 2010). In 2001, Ulmer did a single case study with Malden Mills, a company in the textile industry based in the US, and investigated crisis management through established stakeholder relations. Tsai et al. (2005) did a multiple-case study with 18 different companies to investigate stakeholder influence in downsizing.

Lamberg et al. (2008) did a case study with the two companies of United Airlines and US Airways and investigated the process of their merge. These studies have demonstrated that investigating stakeholder relations with a concentration on a specific business issue (e.g. downsizing, crisis management, etc.) using a case study design is not only widely accepted but also promising. These studies have shown that only the case study design allows for a deep insight into organisations, which is required to find an answer to the research question of this study. Only deep insights into organisations, and the chance to collect information on the complex issue of stakeholder networks, are crucial. This required depth of information could only result in a single case study or in a very small-scale multiple-case study (Post et al., 2002). However, the usefulness of either a single case or a multiple-case study approach for this study is subject to discussion.

Yin (2009) argues that the primary distinction lies between single and multiple-case studies when designing a case. A single case study is useful under the scenario that the selected case does represent an extreme or unique case (Yin, 2009). Recently, single case and multiple-case designs have been used successfully by researchers in this field (Ulmer, 2001; Tsai et al., 2005; Lamberg et al., 2008). Putting additional factors into consideration, a multiple-case design has a better fit with the research question. A single case design would limit the perspective. Choosing different organisations and different

65

industries allows broader insights and could therefore better serve to answer the research questions (Yin, 2009). Although a single case design as well as a multiple-case design can lead to a successful case study, it is usually recommended to choose the multiple-case design. Yin names single case designs as being vulnerable because all the focus of the researcher is on the one case which could also turn out to be the wrong choice. More importantly, the analytical benefit of looking into more than one case might be substantial. Drawn for this study, a multiple-case design might offer the insight into different approaches of organisations probably with different degrees of targeting for risks and benefits. This could add significant value to the data collected throughout the study (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

The multiple-case study design offers different opportunities for the setting of the chosen cases. For this study, mainly two different variations are imaginable. On the one hand, there is the opportunity to investigate organisations that operate within one industry, while on the other hand there is the option to investigate organisations belonging to different industries. When comparing those two different approaches of multiple-case study, it quickly becomes clear that choosing multiple cases within one industry offers more risks and limitations. Reasons for this include the simple limitation to one industry, the smaller chance to get access to more than one organisation within one industry and the problems that can occur if the investigated organisations are competitors, which can then also raise ethical issues (Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2009). For these reasons, only investigating in one industry is not an option for this study.

Conducting a multiple-case study within different industries would be the alternative.

The con for choosing such a design would be the fact that two case studies are harder to compare (if intended) as their stakeholder networks may look rather different and the recruitment may take place under different conditions (Yin, 2009). The consequence of this disadvantage is a higher effort that is required to collect the needed data in two potentially very different environments. However, this needs to be seen alongside with the advantages provided by investigating two different industries. First of all, there is a smaller chance of facing ethical issues due to the competition situation. The fact that the two organisations are in different industries may also contribute to their willingness to provide deep insight into their situation, which is essential for such a study (Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2009). This provides the potentially best situation for the author to collect the information needed to find an answer to the research question. Without insight into

66

the two different organisations in the very different environments mentioned, it would be possible to get the deep insights needed to find out if the stakeholder perspective has or may have an influence on their recruitment. A study by Tsai et al. (2005) has proven the advantages of investigating into multiple cases in different industries when it comes to the investigation of stakeholder networks.

Methods and discussion

The methods used in the case study methodology are also called the six sources of evidence. According to Yin (2009), these sources are documentation, archival records, interviews, direct and participant observations, and physical artefacts. It has to be mentioned that beside these sources, many more can be of use. However, those six have proven to be the most effective when it comes to case study research. As the usage of only one method would potentially not lead to the best outcome (Yin, 2009), the author has decided to use multiple methods. When taking into consideration the advantages and disadvantages as well as the given resources, the choice of concentrating on documents, archival records and in-depth interviews has been made. In this thesis, the phrases, archival records and documentation are merged under the term ‘documents’.

Documents

Using documents as a source for this case study offers the chance to follow the development of an organisation and its interaction within the existing or developing stakeholder network over time. There might be the danger that the documentation (as it is secondary data) is weak and might also be biased. Therefore paying attention to authenticity, credibility and meaning is very important (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

Nevertheless, the analysis of those documents can provide a first insight that will then be enriched by additional information from an interview with the responding HR manager and later on with the findings from the in-depth interviews. This decreases the weakness caused by potential bias in the documents (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). The access to those potentially confidential documents was secured through written agreements signed by directors of both organisations. From a chronological point of view, the first method in use was the study of the documents. Those documents contained recent job ads, statistics on the number and nature of recruitments throughout the last few years, as well as documents related to the human resource strategy, its development throughout the last few years, the past, current recruitment needs and

67

documents on which recruitment activities have already been run by the organisation (see Chapter 6.1 for more details).

The analysis of the documents also made it possible to draft a first map of the organisation’s stakeholder network. This is also of great value for the preparation of the internal interviews and formed the basis for answering the first sub-research question.

Furthermore, the information contributed to the interview guides needed for the internal interviews.

Interviews

Internal in-depth interviews were conducted to critically reflect on and enrich the data gained throughout the document analysis. These internal interviews formed the backbone of the data collection as they allowed for a deep investigation into the issue and enriched the data (Bryman & Bell, 2011).¹⁹ Understanding the full complexity would probably not have been achieved without well-conducted in-depth interviews.

This allowed for the collection of detailed information and led to the understanding needed to answer the research question. The advantages of in-depth semi-structured interviews can certainly be seen in the freedom that this form of interviewing offers.

Conducting interviews in a semi-structured way offers the opportunity to create a comfortable atmosphere with the interviewees. It also provides an environment that is not forcing them to answer a fixed list of questions but gives them the freedom to express themselves while having only areas of questions defined that do not need to be answered in a certain order (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008).

The data collected formed the main basis for answering the research questions.

Therefore, information was collected on many different areas. This is reflected in the interview guide (see Appendix C). Despite the fact that the interview guide has been developed over time and especially during the pilot study (described in Chapter 4), its core has remained the same. The interview guide begins with a warm-up and introduction followed by personal information which helps to put the interviewee and his or her experience into context. The interviewees are then asked to reflect on their own recruitment process. This serves to identify several relevant stakeholders of the organisation in recruitment and discovers different recruitment channels as well as

19 For another study based on internal interviews, please see Crilly & Sloan, 2012).

68

opens up the recruitment perspective for the interviewee. Afterwards the interviewees were asked to describe their own involvement in the recruitment process within their organisation and recruitment activities, which serves also to identify further stakeholders for the stakeholder map. This is followed then by talking about this stakeholder network for recruitment and some reflections. Afterwards, the questions were more directed on the actual influence which this stakeholder view may have on the recruitment and if this comes with risks, benefits or opportunities. This of course serves to find hints for answering the sub research questions two and three.

Those data areas only built the frame for the interviews. It was intended to make use of this semi-structure and be open to unexpected information, which may have provided additional value and helped to find an answer to the research question.

Triangulation

The concept of triangulation means that a research problem is considered from different perspectives. This means for example that several types and sources of data and also diverse methods are used in order to find out what is "really" happening (Tracy, 2013).

As explained above, with document analysis and interviews, different methods are used for the sourcing and the collection of data in this study. Data triangulation and investigator triangulation is achieved, as multiple sources for the data collection and for the investigation into the recruitment situation and networks are used (Flick, 2007). The advantages of using several methods are explained in the previous two sections and form a significant contribution to the quality of this study.